Potatoe1 wrote:There was a video floating around from the CHL all star game (?) where the prospects were put through skating and agility drills.

Gaunce was singled out during the interviews (by another player) as placing first in a large number of the drills.

Not sure if the "skating issues" have been over blown or not but I don't see how a kid who is better then his peer group in numerous skating drills could be particularly deficient in that area.

Either way we will find out in a few months when we see him play at camp.

As I metioned before, the skating issues has to do with his foot speed, first-step quickness, and top speed. He has a long and powerful stride, but he doesn't have good startup speed and he doesn't have the separation gear that some players have. Still, based on the scouting reports I've read, Gaunce is a good forechecker and has the ability to rush the puck up ice.

On the subject of Alexandre Mallet I thought I'd lift some interesting dialogue from over at HFBoards on this player -

y2kcanucks wrote:I don't mind the late picks too much (although you have to wonder why we couldn't have used a 7th round pick on someone like Nick Ebert just for the potential alone), but Mallett over Severson still pisses me off.

Tiranis wrote:Why? Mallet has progressed better than every single late 2nd/early 3rd round pick from the 2010 draft (his original year of eligibility). What exactly is wrong with him? He outproduced Petr Straka (55th overall, same team) and Kirill Kabanov (65th overall), plus a whole bunch of other players drafted that year. Not to mention that he's a two-way player that will fight pretty much every opportunity he gets.

y2kcanucks wrote:So? Most 2nd/3rd round picks never make it to the NHL. I'd much rather spend that pick on a player who could make it than an overager who hasnt shown anything until this year.

Tiranis wrote:He's not an overager though. :facepalm: He's a guy that has produced at a comparable rate as 1st round picks Quinton Howden (25th) and Austin Watson (18th) while actually being 4 months younger than both.

Tiranis wrote:He went from being pigeon-holed as a 4th liner to being a 1st liner with PP time. Of course his points jumped. Maybe the skill was always there but not the opportunity. The fact is that no one can deny that he's a tough, two-way center that has produced at a level comparable to Howden and Watson, both 1st round picks from 2010. Considering both of those guys play a similar type of game, I think the comparison is valid.

y2kcanucks wrote:Isn't the Q a higher scoring league? I wouldn't put any stock in comparing numbers one to one with players in the WHL or OHL.

Tiranis wrote:It's not. WHL is the highest scoring league right now. I love how you're just trying to find a way to discredit his numbers though. No possible way the Canucks found what might be a gem. :laugh:

I included pauser's posts to provide context, not because they are interesting.

“If you look at baseball, historically high schoolers never pan out. College kids almost always do,” said Gillis. “I apply a philosophy from the fourth round onward, that we’re going to select players who are going to go to big programs in the US and develop their skills at a pace that is much more easy to watch.”

The best Canucks success story in this regard is young Chris Tanev. While Tanev was not drafted by the Canucks, he was such a late bloomer physically that he was passed over by every NHL team before he went to college. After a brief college career, Tanev made the NHL jump more quickly than anybody anticipated.

“You look at Tanev, he’s an NHL player, so in my mind he’s a first-round pick,” said Gillis. In Tanev’s first draft year, eight defencemen selected in the first round have yet to be NHL regulars.

While Gillis said he prefers for his philosophy to be enacted from the fourth round onward, it was more prevalent earlier due to the weak 2012 class. Alexandre Mallet was selected in the 2nd round with the 57th overall pick. “He’s more mature,” said Gillis, who admitted that his age worked for him. He’ll be eligible to play with the Chicago Wolves next season, unlike other 18-year old Canadian Hockey League players, allowing the team to get a good look at him.

“It gives you more opportunity and more development time. We have a team right now that we’re not going to make a whole lot of changes to over the next couple of years.”

FAN wrote:As I metioned before, the skating issues has to do with his foot speed, first-step quickness, and top speed. He has a long and powerful stride, but he doesn't have good startup speed and he doesn't have the separation gear that some players have. Still, based on the scouting reports I've read, Gaunce is a good forechecker and has the ability to rush the puck up ice.

Not really seeing that in the videos I watched.

I could easily buy that his top end isn't great, but in the videos he's busting around cones and he looks pretty good doing it.

Anyway I'm not terribly concerned, I think top end speed is a bit over rated anyway. For a big 2-way type the first step and lateral movement is far more important. Those drills were all start stop skating and pivots, and he apparently kicked ass, which is very impressive given he was probably one of the biggest guys on the ice.

I don't think anyone is expecting this guy to be flying through the neutral zone like Jaromir Jagr, and perhaps that the point scouts were making with regard to his skating.

He just isn't that type of player, in terms of upside think David Bakes, Jordan stall, Ryan Oriley, Boorks Laich, or the other 2-way pivots who don't wow you with their speed and puck handling, but are still highly effective players.

The problem comparing older players when playing against younger players is like comparing stats for a player playing High School or any lower league with players in more competitive leagues such as the Dub. It's full of if buts candy and nuts. The stats don't compare

Fred wrote:The problem comparing older players when playing against younger players is like comparing stats for a player playing High School or any lower league with players in more competitive leagues such as the Dub. It's full of if buts candy and nuts. The stats don't compare

That may be true if you were just comparing an overager's stats to an 18-year old's. But dbr was comparing Mallet's stats to kids the same age who were drafted in 2010 or 2011. That's a reasonable comparison in my mind. And, thanks, dbr, for posting that convo from HF board. Very good info from GMMG! Sort of confirms what was suggested here earlier.

The baseball comparison is a terrible one. Its like saying you should trade all your picks for guys in there late 20's because thats who contributes most. It would be a betterer comparison if good hockey prospects went to US colleges but they dont. For the most part the only players that go to US colleges are players that develop late or arent good enough to get drafted in the CHL.

I dont see how taking a 20 year old who has been passed over twice is better than taking an 18 year old from the WHL. In most cases the 20 year old had a breakout season playing against younger competition and now he is going to go play fewer than half the number or games against weaker competition.

Who has better coaches the CHL or US colleges ?

It just seems like Gillis keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when there wasnt any problems with the old one. In case he didnt notice moneyball didnt work in baseball long term. You need good scouts. Thats the bottom line. I would rather him pick 2nd tier Swedish players that might turn out to be stars than 19-20 year olds who are going to go to the US to play.

black ace wrote:The baseball comparison is a terrible one. Its like saying you should trade all your picks for guys in there late 20's because thats who contributes most. It would be a betterer comparison if good hockey prospects went to US colleges but they dont. For the most part the only players that go to US colleges are players that develop late or arent good enough to get drafted in the CHL.

I disagree, it's not a terrible comparison I think your misinterpreting what Gillis is implying.

I understand the reasoning for taking older players is that you can better determine the players talent because they've had longer to develop. There is a big difference between an immature 18 year old and a mature 20 year old. One is still a boy the other is a man.

And regardless two years is 10% of the kids life to that point. There's a lot of change that can occur in tha timespan.

Often kids don't develop until late in their teens, or go through huge growth spurts that makes coordination awkward. This is why you see a better assessment of talent of player when they are in their twenties. The generational talents or even top draft talent will always be fairly easy to find its assessing the rest of the kids that are draft eligible that becomes very tough.

I have no problem wit gillis targeting older players in the later rounds. Seems like a decent plan, especially when one of the reasons they are projected to be drafted later is simply the fact that they are older than others in the draft.

black ace wrote:The baseball comparison is a terrible one. Its like saying you should trade all your picks for guys in there late 20's because thats who contributes most. It would be a betterer comparison if good hockey prospects went to US colleges but they dont. For the most part the only players that go to US colleges are players that develop late or arent good enough to get drafted in the CHL.

Some good hockey prospects go to college, most do not.

However, the picks we are talking about - the guys after the first 100 or so selections - are not generally speaking "good hockey prospects" which is probably why Gillis uses this strategy only in the later rounds.

I dont see how taking a 20 year old who has been passed over twice is better than taking an 18 year old from the WHL. In most cases the 20 year old had a breakout season playing against younger competition and now he is going to go play fewer than half the number or games against weaker competition.

Well in the specific example of Mallet, he got fourth line minutes on his team until this season at which point he exploded and produced more than comparable forwards at the same age vs. the same competition.

So it's a change in opportunity and role as much as it is physical development and experience that led to Mallet's production this season - he outscored players drafted higher than him in his original draft year (ie. guys also playing against younger competition, who were never passed over).

Who has better coaches the CHL or US colleges ?

Well I don't know but it sounds like you're prepared to make some sweeping generalizations. Can you support the argument I suspect you're making (that fringe prospects develop worse in the NCAA than they would in the CHL then jumping into pro at age 20, ready or not)?

It just seems like Gillis keeps trying to reinvent the wheel when there wasnt any problems with the old one. In case he didnt notice moneyball didnt work in baseball long term. You need good scouts. Thats the bottom line. I would rather him pick 2nd tier Swedish players that might turn out to be stars than 19-20 year olds who are going to go to the US to play.

The Canucks have drafted overage players at a higher rate than the rest of the league since before Mike Gillis was around. As for picking players headed to the NCAA it's worked pretty well for the Canucks over the last decade or so.. Bieksa, Kesler, Schneider, Raymond and others fit that description and have all gone onto contribute at the NHL level.

I could easily buy that his top end isn't great, but in the videos he's busting around cones and he looks pretty good doing it.

Anyway I'm not terribly concerned, I think top end speed is a bit over rated anyway. For a big 2-way type the first step and lateral movement is far more important. Those drills were all start stop skating and pivots, and he apparently kicked ass, which is very impressive given he was probably one of the biggest guys on the ice.

Hopefully you're right. I'm not a pro scout, and every scouting report I've read says he needs to work on his first-step quickness so I think there must be something to it. The good thing is that Gaunce apparently knows how to position himself so I think he has the ability to overcome any skating concerns considering he's a powerful skater.

black ace wrote:For the most part the only players that go to US colleges are players that develop late or arent good enough to get drafted in the CHL.

That's not true. Almost all the top players who went to US colleges were drafted in the CHL if they even showed a remote interest in possibly joining the CHL. Top players purposely forego the CHL and play in Junior A or high school or developmental leagues (if American) in order to keep their options open. I mean name some Canadian top 10 draft picks who went to the NCAA who didn't turn down CHL offers? Unless they were super duper late-bloomers, it never happens.

FAN wrote:That's not true. Almost all the top players who went to US colleges were drafted in the CHL if they even showed a remote interest in possibly joining the CHL. Top players purposely forego the CHL and play in Junior A or high school or developmental leagues (if American) in order to keep their options open. I mean name some Canadian top 10 draft picks who went to the NCAA who didn't turn down CHL offers? Unless they were super duper late-bloomers, it never happens.

I think that's more and more the case with players picked in Junior 'A' - they want to keep the option of getting a subsidized education while developing as a hockey player. Not so say that the CHL doesn't have a generous post-secondary education subsidy program, but I think it's a matter of the player judging at an early age just how much of a shot they think they'll have as a pro hockey player. Not to say they don't have the talent or the potential, but if they look at the odds most kids have of making it to the pro leagues it's not unwise to hedge your bets. They're not less talented necessarily - they're just wiser perhaps.

Nothing saying Gillis and Co. can't do anything until they finish college. Connauton was persuaded to go play in the WHL. Schroeder went to the AHL as soon as he was eligible. If Gillis' staff see credible potential while the prospect is in college they can do things to expedite the player's development. Not a bad course of action IMO.

FAN wrote:Hopefully you're right. I'm not a pro scout, and every scouting report I've read says he needs to work on his first-step quickness so I think there must be something to it.

This, to me, is what will determine the cap on this kid's potential. If he can improve his first couple of steps to the pro-level then I would say he has a shot. Anticipation and positioning can only compensate so much. That said, of the highlights I've seen the one thing that stands out is his shot. A lot of his goals came from between the circles and just cleanly beats the goalie. Hopefully that translates to the pro level. Too bad I never saw those goals when I watched him those two games.

I've seen conflicting reports on Gaunce and his skating. Some people suggesting his first step isn't great but yet he finishes well in start stop skating drills. Some say that his top speed isn't great but yet he again places well amongst his peers in those drills. I think a guy on HFBoards who watches him every home game said people may have that idea because when he has the puck he is more purposeful and slows the game down. He isn't a guy to go busting up ice with the puck at top speed.

We'll see what he looks like on the ice at prospects camp. My guess is we are going to see a guy with average skating which at his size and age is a good thing.